Yuku free message boards

bdgrball wrote:

---

stinkinbadgs wrote:

---

bdgrball wrote:

---

"If you believe, as I do, that the macro economy is the sum total of all of its micro parts, then stimulus spending really doesn't make much sense. In essence, it's when government takes additional resources beyond what it would otherwise take from one group of people (usually the people who produced the resources) and then gives those resources to another group of people (often to non-workers and non-producers)."

Laffer is just loaded with beliefs like a lot of true believers no matter what happens it will surely confirm whatever he already believes.  Remember about 25 years ago my Econ professor mocking Laffer because he was an obvious hired gun -- his economics were whatever people were willing to pay him for.  Note the reference to "non-workers and non-producers" -- that's nice right wing talking points.   The reality of the stimulus is that the $$ mostly grew deficits.  Not that Laffer's paymasters are against criticizing deficits only there's a greater need now to pretend there's this small cadre of hard working Americans who are paying for everything ... remember how Rush Limbaugh was paying for health care for students at Georgetown?  Its a beautiful racist paranoid fantasy  -- of lazy blacks taking and a black President who wants to millions of poor voters dependent on him. 

I don't like the right-wing way of describing it either.  Similarly, I can't stands the left's class warfare. The point is that stimulus is just taking money from one group and giving it to another and people should realize that. Unless that second group is more productive with the resources than the first would have been, it shouldn't be expected help the whole.  

bdgrball wrote:

---

CVBucky wrote:

---

bdgrball wrote:

---

I don't like the right-wing way of describing it either.  Similarly, I can't stands the left's class warfare. The point is that stimulus is just taking money from one group and giving it to another and people should realize that. Unless that second group is more productive with the resources than the first would have been, it shouldn't be expected help the whole.  

Class warfare?  Who took half of my 401k in 2008-2009?

Nobody took it, the value of what you owned declined. Owning businesses comes with risk. Whether or not you think stock market declines are caused by "theifs" or not, you can look at the history of the stock market prices and assess whether that is a risk you want to take.  You could move to something safter so you don't have to worry about someone "stealing" your money in the future. Or, you could accept the risks and not blame it on someone else when it doesn't go your way.

bdgrball wrote:

---

CVBucky wrote:

---

bdgrball wrote:

---

Nobody took it, the value of what you owned declined. Owning businesses comes with risk. Whether or not you think stock market declines are caused by "theifs" or not, you can look at the history of the stock market prices and assess whether that is a risk you want to take.  You could move to something safter so you don't have to worry about someone "stealing" your money in the future. Or, you could accept the risks and not blame it on someone else when it doesn't go your way.

Am I correct in stating that you're saying the money that was in my account didn't end up in somene else's bank account?

You say it as if someone went in and took money out of your account.  If you beleive that crooks caused the economy to crash, then they indirectly caused your account to decline. The money in your account was not directly transfered from you to them.

There was some wealth destruction that took place (GDP dropped but has now recovered) so that loss didn't benefit anybody. I could be thinking about this wrong but don't think I am. The value of the stocks that you held/hold are determined by the the most recent price that two parties are willing to transact at.  If, for example, two parties decide to sell one share of each of the companies you own at a lower prices, it doesn't mean that the money you have instantaneously lost has shifted to someone else's account. In other words, no, if the value of your 401k drops, it doesn't result in an equal increase in someone's bank account.